Symantec Corporation Product Discussion

I'm sure at one time or another many of us will have used Norton Internet Security, Norton Anti-Virus, or Norton Personal Firewall for our Security. Now, apart from the obvious size of the software in comparison the system resource usage, i'd like to discuss the effectiveness of this package. For the record, my previous Security configuration was Eset NOD32 Anti-Virus System 2.51 and Webroot Spy Sweeper 5.0.5 with Windows Firewall. My Operating System is Windows XP Professional with Service Pack 2 with all available updates installed along with Microsoft Office 2003 with Service Pack 2 with all available updates. I had no back up software - The Backup software included with Windows XP itself which wasn't suited to my needs, i had no recovery software, and finally i'm a very centralised user.

Now, i'm not someone who simply "jumps" at the chance to buy the latest Norton range of software, and i'm certainly not blind to the fact that
Symantec's software gets flak from users with bad experiences, but for my personal needs, and for the wider needs as advised in the MS Press book Microsoft Windows XP Networking And Security, by installing the above software, i had followed the precautions every user should take - and more. The reason i bought the software was in light of the situation i had before i moved to a situation where the Router was available, in addition i am using an ADSL Connection and not Cable, as i was previously and in which there would be full need for this software regardless as i would have been using a Cable modem with no hardware based protection.

I'm fully hoping to make my Security and Networking enthusiasm become a full time job for a reputable and trustworthy firm such as Symantec or Eset, but i would like to see everyone's opinions on Symantec's software, and if, in all honesty, i've done the right thing and made the right choices relating to my situation regardless of public perception and the stigma that is prevelant against Symantec's software - My girlfriend purchased software for myself therefore I'd also feel somewhat guilty in not using it. The fact is that Security companies are vying for your attention regarding their products, and although certain products are obviously incapable of adequate protection for its users - Where the "adequate" protection definition can be applied in Security I do not know. Symantec is at the very least a very reputable and recognisable provider, they provide powerful protection and confidence for customers.

I fully believe that Security for each individual is a truly unique task, in that each user has specific needs that need to be addressed and catered for, and that in all fairness, each and every vendor is aiming to provide protection from a common threat, regardless of how it is seen by others. Saying that, Symantec promote confidence in Computing, they provide confidence in their products and confidence in the End User that the products they purchase from Symantec can protect their data - Independant testing supports this factor.
I'm not one for believing that Security is a product, it's a process taking multiple factors, for example I take common precautions by concealing my E-Mail Address, using disposable E-Mail Address Services to prevent SPAM and identity theft, I also run my everyday User Account in the User Group which is critical in certain cases to stem malware infections.

I'm reading Secrets & Lies by Bruce Schneier just now and I fully recommend the book to anyone interested in Security, it is expertly written yet in comparion it is a wonderful read that will entertain and inform, it's both educational and eye opening and Bruce has written it in such a way that my parents can quite easily understand many topics.

I am usually at odds with most of the members here in that I don't think Norton security software is bad. Actually I have used it off and on for years and have been well protected when useing it. But I test and check out antivirus programs constantly. Usually install and uninstall on average three security programs a week. So I don't really recommend any one program as there are quite a few programs that do work very well. But back to your question, I don't think you will find any security apps that are much better than norton. Norton antivirus has a very good detection and cleaning rate. But in the end the decision is ultimatly yours to make. If you feel protected and comfortable with norton , go for it.

I only can agree with @bigc73542. Symantec has a very good product range with very good security aplications. The AV is one of its best without doubt. One reason for sure is that Symantec is constantly buying software house which have/had good product, adapting there knowledge. That's economy and legal.Latest 'Sygate'.
To tell the truth, i don't use Symantec product anymore because they are 'heavy-bloated' and subscribe themself deply into your OS. I prefer lightware with equal quality.

If I had to pay for an AV, then I would go with NOD32. For the average PC users, Avast Home (free) is more than adequate protection. If you go to malicious websites, then NO AV solution is going to protect your PC.

Finally, SYMC has a lousy history of acquisition. Norton used to be a good application. Drive Image/Partition Magic used to be a good application. I could go on....

Mc Afee 8.0i is well respected in the corporate environment. NAV is popular because it comes pre-bundled with many computers. Most people don't know squat about AV, but they recognize the name SYMANCTEC/NORTON due to the ads in PC magazines and/or internet. I have no doubt that NOD32 would quickly displace NAV if management was to use this FREE bundle strategy.

I don't see anything wrong with online registration And I haven't had problems with live update and as far as being a large program, My computer hardly even notices the room it takes. And as far as removal goes, from version 2005 and up there is no problem uninstalling the program. and as far as being bloated, it isn't bloated it is just a large program. Bloated would mean that it is really large and just takes up space. Where as Norton uses what it installs to protect your computer not just to take up space.

I have NAV 2006 installed on one of my images here and I use it off and on when the mood strikes. I think it's a good solid product and I haven't had any problems with it. Frankly, sometimes I get tired of all the http scanners and such and just want to use a high quality AV like Norton. It is a little "heavy", but I find that it doesn't affect system performance at all like some of the others can (KAV for instance). Anyway, it's popular to bash Norton these days, but I like it.

I had Symantec Norton Save & Restore, knocking about on a machine as a friend wanted me to take a look at it and I also added nis2006 because I'm interested to see where symantec is. I do not knock a product unless I have a personal reason to.
NS&R is for the average user, you cannot go wrong with this if you follow the prompts. You can now backup files by selection and filter. S&R integrates with the protection centre which integrates with the antivirus - if a 'serious' threat is detected the protection centre invokes a backup. The cd was very slow and I could not be used to image. It is expensive. +20 than ATI.
NAVs detection, when the user does a scan, and has bloodhound turned to highest protection, is very good. The NPFirewall is very good. NIS integrates into ie therefor you can make rules for sites as you go - NIS2006 I do not like because of NO Stats and NO way of terminating a connection. NIS now runs better taking less resources and the s should now be taken away from the front of snorton.

Scott looks like you have settled on norton -your choice- whatever works for you. Personally I'd explain things to the gf and go back to nod for the av. I'm testing nod at the mo and it has stopped every 'virus' I have.

'Your level of skill and available time will decide which is best.' - a wilders member

Well, while I do like Norton Products quite a bit (and the products do work well enough), I've never had any of my emails about Norton answered by Symantec. No reply at all, not even a reply giving a link to a knowledge base article.

While I shall not slam Norton as a product, since it *is* a good product, I must say that I'm not very satisfied with their support services.

Thank you all for your helpful and useful insight,~Off topic comments removed -Ron~ I think Symantec are in a position as Microsoft is, it has a reputation only held up by those who don't understand the technology as "atrocious" when, if you were to be mature in a conversation about such matters, you'd find that through the misconceptions about the software are only fueled by those wishing to fit in with the online community being the "In" crowd and suchlike. Symantec's software is visual, and has one of the best designed GUIs in the industry of Information Security applications. It visually reminds the user to be concious about their Security, that yes, they are protected by a reputable and confident firm. Many people take aim at Symantec's marketing at being overzealous when promoting their products, but isn't that the aim of every vendor?

I can't tell you how glad I am that the industry is finally joining forces to fight malware, it's now going to be a unified and ever stronger force against malware authors and I think it was needed. Personally, and I think this still, there is more comparison of Security software in the industry against others nowadays than there has been in recent years, a case of "If you're not in Camp A, you're worse off." and in all honesty, I'm glad to see the industry is growing up rather than resorting to underhanded tactics of statistics and suchlike to attract a consumers - I used Symantec AntiVirus Corporate while working for an industry support company and it's an excellent and well regarded package. I also think that the GUI promotes an amateur-like feeling however in relation to the package, but this simple fact actually makes it eaiser for the user, and since I'm a very centrally managed user, I couldn't ask for a better inteface. I also think that there is automatic preconceptions about Symantec's engine capabilities. Again, through the crud of the "In" crowd, it is one of the most longstanding the mature engines on the market and isn't in any way to be dismissed, and if independant testing at AV-Comparatives doesn't signal this, then said person is in denial.
I enjoy reading Symantec's Blogs and suchlike, they are very interesting, and although I don't know if Symantec pioneered the feature, Eset and F-Secure are amongst other companies I've noticed hosting Blogs, and this in my opinion brings a confident face to the company and confidence in your Security, in my opinion, is critical. As Security Enthusiasts we need to promote confidence in products and in our knowledge and expertise, we need to give the End User confidence in their Computing. This is critical to their understanding of how they can better their Security and be more aware of the risks and how to mitigate them - Again Security is a process, not a product, incidentally I'm pleased to see that Symantec's 2006 software integrates well with the Groups within Windows XP, again I'm currently in the User Group, a strong attack mitigator which is a simple task to setup. It's simply too much of a "How effective is your engine?" industry nowadays and they are disappropriating themselves with the task in hand, protecting their customers. Frankly, if you want to have as strong a force you can against malware, work together, not apart. More hands, they say, make light work of a task in hand.

I don't know about anyone else, but I find the term "What is the best Security package available?" both misleading and false and it quite literally irritates myself, especially in terms of marketing. In my opinion there is not such thing as the best. If there were a best in the industry, everyone I'm quite sure would be using it and that's simply not the case. Every package is effective, it cannot mitigate nor protect against all threats. I should now edit my Signature.

Was a big reseller of Symantecs product up til about 2 years ago. For their "home" grade products I think the last one I liked was version 2001. Went downhill from there...increasingly downhill.

I stayed onboard as a reseller/VAR selling/installing/supporting their Corporate Edition/Small Business Edition antivirus products on SMBs. (Had been with the product since version 5) Began to dislike it around version 9...noticed it started falling behind others in being able to detect the newer threats..licensing got to be a pain, prices went up, updates not as frequent as others, and it also started bogging down users systems (performance wise)...as historically their business grade antivirus was always lighter than their home products. Once version 10 came out...yuck...pig. I completely stopped selling/reselling it. When a high percentage of end users will complain on how much slower their systems ran when you did a silent upgrade from 9-10 the weekend before...hey, it's not longer just my opinion or imagination.

Still have to deal with the danged thing...as so many brand new systems unfortunately come pre-packaged with it. IBM/Lenovo Thinkpads and HP's Business machines for example..I deploy a lot of them..and have to suffer through the agonizingly long uninstall process of it.

I don't like that tactic at all...of bundling a corporate version antivirus package on a new machine. For home users, for the Dell Dimensions/Inspirons, the HP Presarios, eMachines, all those 1 year home user computers...it's fine. But for business grade machines..like Dell Optiplexes/Latitudes, IBM Thinkpads, HP dc5000/7000 series Business Desktops..etc etc...most business networks already have their business grade antivirus platform in place...it's such a pain to have to clean off new systems.

Also actively seeking a replacement for the Backup Exec product (since they purchased Veritas).

As far as the job they do, I don't think Symantec products are bad. I do have two issues, which is why I won't use them.

1. Bloat. But let me define bloat. If all I want is an AV, then I just want an AV. Norton has a tendency to include additional things whose only purpose is to make it easier to add other Norton products. That to me is pure unnecessary bloat. if something is needed for another product install it when I install that product.

2. Support. My experience with Norton support has shown it to be virtually non existant. My last experience with them was spending hours reaching them by phone, only to find out they were aware of the problem and had done nothing to alert the new buyers whom it affected. Gee they had registration emails. Worse still the solution provided was wrong.

Was a big reseller of Symantecs product up til about 2 years ago. For their "home" grade products I think the last one I liked was version 2001. Went downhill from there...increasingly downhill

Click to expand...

your assesment doesn't necessarily fit the facts. Since version 2005 of norton antivirus the program usually runs light on computers less that two years old. user comments on the 2005 and up NAV are almost all positive. There are a few that that still don't like it or it doesn't work well on their computer. But that can happen to any AV. My computer absolutly won't run Nod32. And Symantec doesn't automatically destroy products they buy, I have norton partition magic and it works flawlessly. I really can't figure out how people get such a myopic view of Symantec products. Jealously I guess that they don't own the company. But I will admit their support does sucks

There will always be PCs that run NAV without any issue. Let's use common sense before we declare that NAV's size is not a liability. Efficient software coding is very important when it comes to speed and system stability. Why require the PC to deal with 10000 lines of code when 100 lines will do the job? There ain't no free lunch. A larger application will require more HDD activity and CPU clock time. An average user may not see the slowdown if your CPU is faster than a 500MHz PIII.

Shouldn't a good AV be compatible with OLD and NEW PCs? Why limit NAV to computers that are less than two years old? Mc Afee 8.0i, for example, is smooth as butter on my 600MHz PIII.

Is NAV 2006 much better than NAV 2001 when both have the most up-to-date virus definition file?

Want to know how NAV fares in the real-world? Read comments from those who maintain and service PCs. How many are endorsing NAV? How many top-of-the-line custom PCs use NAV?

SYMC's stock price is in the dog house since peaking in 2004. People wise-up when they found out that SYMC isn't the only game in town. Just like AOL users, they are discovering lower-cost alternatives with SUPERIOR CUSTOMER SUPPORT! BTW, I give SYMC's customer support an F.

There will always be PCs that run NAV without any issue. Let's use common sense before we declare that NAV's size is not a liability. Efficient software coding is very important when it comes to speed and system stability. Why require the PC to deal with 10000 lines of code when 100 lines will do the job? There ain't no free lunch. A larger application will require more HDD activity and CPU clock time. An average user may not see the slowdown if your CPU is faster than a 500MHz PIII.

Shouldn't a good AV be compatible with OLD and NEW PCs? Why limit NAV to computers that are less than two years old? Mc Afee 8.0i, for example, is smooth as butter on my 600MHz PIII.

Is NAV 2006 much better than NAV 2001 when both have the most up-to-date virus definition file?

Want to know how NAV fares in the real-world? Read comments from those who maintain and service PCs. How many are endorsing NAV? How many top-of-the-line custom PCs use NAV?

Click to expand...

Yes 2006 NAV does give much better protection than 2001. The 2001 version can't utilize the downloads the same as the newer versions as the av engine was not designed to use all of the new definations like antispyware, antitrojan and more. It is always advisable to upgrade to the latest version of any security product so you will be able to beprotected fom the new types of threats that show up every day. There is no way to compare the protection of 2001 with 2005/2006 as the older version just can't detect most of the newer threats. Even though the 2001 version will download the newer definitions it can't use most of it because it's engine can't utilize them. Symantec used to have this info on their home web page bet have since removed it since it is really old news.

And I used to build and maintain PC's when I had my two computer shops for several decades.

Thank you everyone again for replying, if anything I didn't expect there to be a mature conversation about Symantec software, I was quite obviously wrong in my pre-assumption that the World and his Goat would be smiting Symantec's software. In all honesty, I have used Symantec's products from 2002 through 2006 and by far I feel that Symantec's 2006 software is the most effective product they have ever produced. I know many were on the fence regarding Symantec's Windows Vista White Paper, I haven't read it myself yet but I hope it'll be an interesting read, it'll certainly give us an incling into what to expect with Windows Vista when it's finally released in 2007. Windows XP Service Pack 3 is also released next year with rumours of a Service Pack 4 being planned. Either way, I haven't had any issues with Symantec's software at all, in fact I feel confident that I have strong protection and the ability to backup my system as and when I please. Norton GoBack 4.1 is one of the most useful pieces of software I have ever used, the ability to restore files individually is excellent and I think Symantec's decision to buy Roxio, who originally marketed the product as Roxio GoBack, was a wise and beneficial move. For all the supposed issues Symantec's software causes, there can be no doubt that it is the still one of the most effective packages on the market and the AntiVirus engine is excellent.

All in all, if anything, I'm more confident with Symantec's software than I have ever felt although I can't say that Uninstalling Eset NOD32 AntiVirus System didn't bring a tear to my eye. I will use it, guaranteeed, but at this moment it simply isn't the solution I need, I'd spend far more time configuring individual packages for optimum protection in their respected fields than working, and with Symantec's Protection Center I can centrally manage the software. Regardless of the stigma it has, and if you're mature about it, you'll see that Symantec are still a strong force in the Information Security field.

I thought I say that although my system performance has somewhat decreased using Symantec's software, I don't play games and suchlike therefore it's not an issue and at the end of the day I still have protection and confident strong protection at that. I think McAfee are atrocious personally and their suite is both somewhat "paranoid" in use. Either way, everyone has their own particular favourite suites and software packages and no-one should be victimised - ~Off topic comments removed - Ron~ I have used Symantec software for 4 years and I know people who have used it for many more years than I with no issues, not one. It simply shows the fact that, unlike what you read on the Internet, and where "All For One And One For All" opinions are concerned, I'm confident and pleased with the protection that Symantec AntiVirus engine gives to users like myself. As has been said beforehand in this thread, Symantec's Norton software, is still an excellent choice and regardless of whether you're a Security Professional or a Home User, I would consider purchasing Symantec Norton AntiVirus regardless of this fact. Does anyone have information on the experiences they've personally had with the software and how many users themselves would use Symantec's software in confidence?

Exactly how does Symantec's Norton AntiVirus BloodHound Huerisitics work in tandem with the engine and are there any areas users feel that Symantec should improve their product in? I would certainly like Symantec to improve resource usage although it's simply not an issue for myself, I'm quite content with my system, I enjoy keeping it healthy and I never have issues with malware, infact my incident this week using Eset NOD32 AntiVirus System was the first incident I'd experienced using Eset NOD32 AntiVirus System in 10 months of use and the first incident with malware in a year of using Windows legitimately.

I used to use norton up in till 1.5 years ago which is when i got my new pc.

when ive tryed other antivirus products on it since to try them I have had 200 bits of spyware. like 50 or 60 trojans. so what is it stopping? not much.

my old always crashed never really worked. when i got my new pc i installed f-secure no problems at all. and then a friend told me about spysweeper which i have installed on this pc and this pc is clean of malware. but i thought i would try it on my old pc and thats what found my 200bits of spyware. no wonder it didnt work lol. so i am now thinking of getting kaspersky and outpost because they are better and lighter than f-secure is.

all the 4 years of using my old pc complaining it didnt work and blaming dell for it. since it was a dell pc I was mistaken it seems it was norton internet secuirty not protecting me from the trojans and spyware.
any comments?

lol. so i am now thinking of getting kaspersky and outpost because they are better and lighter than f-secure is.

all the 4 years of using my old pc complaining it didnt work and blaming dell for it. since it was a dell pc I was mistaken it seems it was norton internet secuirty not protecting me from the trojans and spyware.
any comments?

Click to expand...

Greetings Lodore,

The fact is that up until Norton Internet Security 2006, as far as I know of, Symantec didn't including AntiSpyware detection and I would like to make it known that I'm also using Webroot Spy Sweeper 5.0.5 also. Trojan Horse programs, regardless of the detection program being used are very difficult to detect on their own regardless of whether or not you have the a competent and well respected AntiVirus solution. Trojan Horse programs do not have a specific signature unlike Viruses but the main issue with Trojan Horses is that they are often concealed within seemingly benine files and installation programs in which permission is granted by the user to install the program by simply avoiding the EULA and therefore the threat is undetected. This is a reason as to why the End User must read the EULA in order to know exactly what is being installed on your system. It also depends on exactly where you surf. If you surf somewhat seedy websites and the like, the chances of your system being infected multiply greatly. I don't think that the above comment is at all relevant to Symantec's 2006 software and after all, no software can protect your system against all threats therefore, regardless of which AntiVirus, AntiSpyware and Personal Firewall program you use, there is always a window of opportunity to have your system infiltrated by malware.

In comparison, I read the thread regarding Symantec Norton Internet Security 2007 BETA. Exactly how does it perform in comparision to the 2006 software, how does it compare resource usage wise and would you say that there is a marked improvement in the quality of the software? I certainly like the GUI with this version of the software, does anyone know exactly when Symantec plan to release the software to the public? I know that it's recently been released as a public BETA so it's not as thought I'm expecting it by the year's end. I look forward to seeing what protection they offer Windows Vista come its 2007 release.

I like almost all symantec programs except Norton AV and IS, it is just too huge and not so good compared to others detection rates.

Click to expand...

Actually Nortons detection rates are excellent when compared with others. I used it but switched because I wanted a product that offered approximatly equal detection but faster system scans. So I presently use NOD 2.50.25.